LOBBYING: REFORM FAILS TO HALT FLOW OF CORPORATE GIFTS

Before Missourians register disgust on hearing the word lobbyist, consider this scenario: Your boss asks you discuss with your neighbor a proposed law that would levy a new tax on his business, and recognizing that whatever pinches your employer can also affect your income, you discuss the law with the fellow living across the street who happens to be a member of the General Assembly.

Or consider this: As a member of a church that relies on bingo sales for a portion of its budget, your minister or priest calls on you to write a letter to area legislators requesting they vote bingo-tax exemptions for religious groups operating private schools or day care centers.

In both cases, under Missouri's broadly written statute defining lobbyists, you would qualify as a representative of an organization or company seeking enactment of new laws or revisions of existing ones.

Although exempted under the statute as a so-called professional lobbyist, you would still meet certain conditions of the Missouri law requiring the registration of non-salaried legislative lobbyists.

And for failure to register, the law calls for violators, for the first offense, to be charged with a misdemeanor, and for the second and subsequent offenses, the charge will be raised to a felony.

It should be noted that in all probability, neither scenario will ever occur, since from a practical standpoint, the overworked Ethics Commission staff already has more work than it can handle, and besides, there are plenty of other violations out there that have a higher priority than a private citizen who is acting innocently on behalf of a friend, his employer, his church or charitable organization.

Keeping track of 2,168 men and women who readily admit they are seeking favors in either the legislative or executive branches of government, or both, will keep the agency plenty busy for years to come.

Commission personnel are much more interested in such companies as Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., which last year was the state's leading and most lavish spending lobbyist. It is a trend that likely will continue this year.

Ethics agency reports show the phone company spent more than $65,000 in 1993 just to buy members of the General Assembly a few moments of pleasure at bars, restaurants, sporting events and golf courses.

And don't forget personal gifts Ma Bell's nephew in Missouri bestowed on legislators who in this year's session considered more than 75 bills affecting the large corporation.

The company's three full-time lobbyists reached out and touched numerous lawmakers, some for thousands of dollars, according to the latest financial disclosure reports available.

The unquestionable champion pork recipient was state Sen. John Scott, a St. Louis Democrat and a former president pro tem of the upper chamber, who got meals, refreshments and other amenities totaling $4,531 in 1993. The bulk of Bell's gifts to Scott was in the form of athletic tickets, most of which the senator distributed to friends and constituents.

Another big-time recipient, ranking second on Bell's spending sheet, was Rep. Norman Sheldon, DeSoto Democrat, who received tickets and gifts totaling $3,208, again with the claim that he distributed them to acquaintances and home district voters.

A couple of other legislators, Rep. Jim Foley of St. Ann and Speaker Bob Griffin of Cameron, each received more than $2,000 in free meals, golf fees and other gifts from Bell, while 13 others received more than $1,000 in gifts last year.

This group included Sen. Bill Clay Jr., Rep. Paula Carter and Rep. Jim O'Toole, all of St. Louis; Rep. Joe Treadway, Lemay; Sen. Ronnie DePasco, Kansas City; Sen. Bill McKenna, Barnhart; Rep. O.L. Shelton, St. Louis; Sen. Fred Dyer, St. Charles; House Majority Leader Bob Ward, Bonne Terre; Sen. Phil Curls and Rep. Bonnie Sue Cooper, both of Kansas City; Rep. Raymond Hand, Warson Woods; and Rep. Louis Ford, St. Louis. All are Democrats, the majority party in both chambers, except Dyer, Cooper and Hand.

The phone company picks up the tab for more than bar bills and restaurant checks, as witness its purchase for Rep. Carter of an electronic phone index worth $148 and a $58 birthday gift, as well as a $203 expenditure for some printed invitations for the St. Louis representative.

Rep. Cooper received a $500 check from Bell last year in connection with her candidacy for president of a national association of women legislators.

Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Steve McLuckie, a Kansas City Democrat, refuse to accept any gifts. But they are in a minority.

Most will accept what they view as minor gifts, arguing that such expenditures don't sway their voting on a company's favored bills.

An effort was made in this year's session to prohibit acceptance of any gifts, including meals and beverages, but it had virtually no support and died without ever being heard in committee.

Virtually all of the department and division directors comply with the law by signing up as lobbyists, although a computer check shows that employees in agencies that are relatively independent of the General Assembly for their financing, such as Highways and Transportation and Conservation, register less frequently than those more dependent on lawmakers for funding.

High profile departments, such as Social Services, Economic Development and Mental Health, all have directors who register as lobbyists, although Education Commissioner Bob Bartman doesn't.

Most state university presidents, including Missouri University President George Russell, and even many curators and regents, also register as lobbyists.

So do numerous members of various state agency commissions, and while many don't receive any compensation, except actual expenses, they sign the registration form. So do presidents of such large organization as the Missouri Farm Bureau, Charles Kruse, and Missouri Chamber of Commerce, Jo Frappier.

Under current law, it is more important to register as a lobbyist than halt the flow of gifts to elected officials.